Vision AI ← BACK TO SEARCHSeason2025/262026 · this seasonAll seasons
Building the full report
Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportSerie A 2026

Torino

A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #9 of 20 on 13 points (4-1-4, 14:14). Tactical profile below is built from 9 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

territorially-dominatedaggressive high-pressmoderate attack
D
D
L
W
L
D
L
L
W
L
D
W
W
W
L
13
points
#9 of 20 · 9 games
14:14
goals
+0 GD
4-1-4
record
W-D-L
1.44
points/game
#9 in the league
1.03
xG for/game
rank #18
1.43
xG against/game
rank #11
#14
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
40%
field tilt
#17
Torino
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.031.42
Expected goals against / game
1.431.43
Field tilt
40%50%
Pass retention
81%83%
Overview

The team

Who they are and how the season went.

Who Are They? — Identity

The question
In one read, what kind of team is Torino and how good was the season?
Read. Torino currently sit #9 of 20 on 13 points (4W-1D-4L, 1.44 pts/game), scoring 14 and conceding 14 for a goal difference of +0. On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (40% field tilt, #17 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#14 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 9 matches of event data, they create 1.03 xG/game (#18) and concede 1.43 (#11), a net of -0.40 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Torino actually finish, and against whom?

The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Torino.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
6Napoli94231711+614
7Frosinone84221713+414
8Juventus94231110+114
9Torino94141414+013
10Cagliari9414813-513
11Bologna93241212+011
12Atalanta83141415-110

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Torino actually dominate for chances — and which periods hurt them?

Net xG (created minus conceded) in each 15-minute window, summed across the whole season's matches — above the line is time they dominate for chances, below is time it hurts them. Real on-clock shot timing.

dominant (net xG for)conceding (net xG against)
even0-15'16-30'31-45'46-60'61-75'76-90+'+0.11-1.73
Vision AI Model Insight
Torino tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -2.40, second-half -1.21. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +0.11 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 31-45' (net -1.73 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 9 matches: Torino against what their opponents created. A line pulling away upwards is a side creating more than it gives away; the gap at the end is the season’s balance (-3.6 xG). Hover a point for that match.

059149.312.9AC Milan (H) 1-2 · xG 0.98 to 2.10Sassuolo (A) 1-2 · xG 0.99 to 1.69Fiorentina (A) 2-1 · xG 0.73 to 1.19Roma (H) 0-2 · xG 0.98 to 1.88Bologna (A) 1-1 · xG 0.77 to 0.73Udinese (H) 2-1 · xG 1.52 to 0.81Parma Calcio 1913 (A) 3-0 · xG 1.14 to 2.07Monza (H) 3-2 · xG 1.15 to 0.45Como (H) 1-3 · xG 1.01 to 1.95M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8M9
TorinoOpponents against Torino

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Torino's footballing identity?

Each gene is a 0–100 score — the team's league percentile across the metrics that define that phase of play. It distils the whole report into an identity fingerprint: the taller the gene, the more that trait defines them.

22
Build-Up
possession control from the back
15
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
7
Creation
manufacturing chances
22
Press
winning the ball high & hard
45
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Torino are defined most by their Solidity DNA (45/100 · average at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Creation DNA (7/100). Percentiles vs the 20 teams in the league.

The Playstyle Wheel

Fifteen style metrics across five domains — Possess, Disrupt, Finish, Press, Defend — each a percentile against the rest of the league. Metrics marked ~proxy use the closest available event-data signal where the standard definition needs data this feed doesn't carry (explicit pressure events, offside/keeper-sweep incidents).

Possess23Disrupt42Finish30Press41Defend26
Possess
Deep buildup
26%
Possession
26%
Field tilt
17%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
35%
Dribble tendency
35%
Progressive passes
57%
Finish
Final-third patience
17%
Shot quality
39%
Open-play xG
35%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
22%
High regains
43%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
57%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
26%
High line ~proxy
30%
PAdj defensive actions
22%
Torino is defined most by Disrupt (42% in the league) and weakest on Possess (23%). Percentiles vs the 23 teams in the league this season.
In possession

In possession

How they keep the ball, build up, progress, create and finish, and where their attacks die.

Keeping the ball6 sections

Field Tilt — Territorial Control

The question
How much of the pitch does Torino actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Torino's matches, the standard proxy for territorial dominance. Plotted against points per game for every side in the league — the real question isn't just who controls territory, it's whether that control actually converts into results. Dashed lines mark the league average on each axis; Torino highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.

Lazio: 56% tilt, 2.78 pts/gInter: 69% tilt, 2.78 pts/gRoma: 64% tilt, 2.33 pts/gComo: 62% tilt, 2.22 pts/gAC Milan: 52% tilt, 2.00 pts/gFrosinone: 50% tilt, 1.75 pts/gNapoli: 52% tilt, 1.56 pts/gJuventus: 65% tilt, 1.56 pts/gTorino: 40% tilt, 1.44 pts/gCagliari: 33% tilt, 1.44 pts/gAtalanta: 47% tilt, 1.25 pts/gBologna: 45% tilt, 1.22 pts/gLecce: 44% tilt, 1.12 pts/gGenoa: 38% tilt, 1.11 pts/gSassuolo: 47% tilt, 0.89 pts/gMonza: 47% tilt, 0.78 pts/gParma Calcio 1913: 34% tilt, 0.56 pts/gUdinese: 54% tilt, 0.56 pts/gFiorentina: 50% tilt, 0.50 pts/gVenezia: 51% tilt, 0.33 pts/gTorino33%45%57%69%0.31.12.02.8FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Torino post 40% field tilt, ranking #17 of 20 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.44 points/game sits above the league-average return — a real disconnect: their territorial control isn't showing up on the scoreboard the way it should.

Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts

The question
When Torino has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Torino's time on the ball spent in each phase of play, in the order the phases happen. A phase is where the ball is on the pitch (own third, middle third, final third); a transition or a set piece skips the build-up and is counted on its own.

Build-up: 32.7% of the time on the ball33%Progression: 46.9% of the time on the ball47%Chance creation: 18.6% of the time on the ball19%Attacking transition: 1.8% of the time on the ball47%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up32.7%
Progression46.9%
Chance creation18.6%
Attacking transition1.8%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Torino spends most of its time on the ball (47% of its time on the ball).

Passing Network

The question
Who actually plays with whom — the real on-pitch connections, not just average positions?

Every pass linked to its likely receiver (the next same-team touch), aggregated into player-pair combinations at each player's average position. Line width = how often the pair combines; colour = threat generated per pass (blue low → red high). Hover a line for the pair, or click a player to isolate their connections.

Saúl Coco ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 110 passes, -0.5 combined xTArdian Ismajli ↔ Saúl Coco: 75 passes, -0.4 combined xTArdian Ismajli ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 75 passes, -0.4 combined xTLucas Perri ↔ Saúl Coco: 67 passes, -0.4 combined xTPietro Comuzzo ↔ Alessio Cacciamani: 66 passes, -0.0 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Saúl Coco: 60 passes, -0.0 combined xTNikola Vlasic ↔ Saúl Coco: 59 passes, -0.0 combined xTNikola Vlasic ↔ Rafik Belghali: 58 passes, 1.1 combined xTLucas Perri ↔ Ardian Ismajli: 53 passes, -0.6 combined xTSaúl Coco ↔ Rafik Belghali: 50 passes, -0.1 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 45 passes, 0.6 combined xTLucas Perri ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 40 passes, -0.2 combined xTArdian Ismajli ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 40 passes, -0.1 combined xTKian Fitz-Jim ↔ Saúl Coco: 40 passes, -0.2 combined xTPietro Comuzzo ↔ Niccolò Fortini: 39 passes, 0.2 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 38 passes, 0.3 combined xTKian Fitz-Jim ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 36 passes, 0.2 combined xTChé Adams ↔ Nikola Vlasic: 34 passes, 0.6 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Nikola Vlasic: 32 passes, 0.6 combined xTDaniel Bragança ↔ Saúl Coco: 32 passes, 0.1 combined xTDaniel Bragança ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 31 passes, -0.1 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Daniel Bragança: 28 passes, 0.4 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Ardian Ismajli: 26 passes, 0.1 combined xTNikola Vlasic ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 26 passes, 0.3 combined xTGiovanni Simeone — isolate this player's connectionsSimeoneNikola Vlasic — isolate this player's connectionsVlasicSaúl Coco — isolate this player's connectionsCocoAlessio Cacciamani — isolate this player's connectionsCacciamaniPietro Comuzzo — isolate this player's connectionsComuzzoGvidas Gineitis — isolate this player's connectionsGineitisArdian Ismajli — isolate this player's connectionsIsmajliRolando Mandragora — isolate this player's connectionsMandragoraEnzo Ebosse — isolate this player's connectionsEbosseLucas Perri — isolate this player's connectionsPerriChé Adams — isolate this player's connectionsAdamsDaniel Bragança — isolate this player's connectionsBragançaRafik Belghali — isolate this player's connectionsBelghaliKian Fitz-Jim — isolate this player's connectionsFitz-JimAlieu Njie — isolate this player's connectionsNjieNiccolò Fortini — isolate this player's connectionsFortini
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Coco ↔ Comuzzo
110p · -0.5xT
Ismajli ↔ Coco
75p · -0.4xT
Ismajli ↔ Comuzzo
75p · -0.4xT
Perri ↔ Coco
67p · -0.4xT
Comuzzo ↔ Cacciamani
66p · -0.0xT
Mandragora ↔ Coco
60p · -0.0xT
Vlasic ↔ Coco
59p · -0.0xT
Vlasic ↔ Belghali
58p · 1.1xT
Perri ↔ Ismajli
53p · -0.6xT
Coco ↔ Belghali
50p · -0.1xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Saúl Coco ↔ Pietro Comuzzo (110 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Nikola Vlasic ↔ Rafik Belghali (0.02 xT/pass over 58 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Torino had the ball

Every touch across 88 matches. Brighter means more touches.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Torino actually do its on-ball work?

Passes on one map, carries (the ball travelling with a player) on the other. Each is binned into the 15 pitch zones (three thirds × five vertical lanes) and shaded by its share of that kind of action; the arrows are the real actions.

Passes
the ball moved by a pass
4318
ACTIONS
4%5%16%5%4%7%9%13%10%8%5%3%3%3%4%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1050
ACTIONS
3%4%13%7%3%7%9%13%11%9%7%2%3%2%8%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (15.6% of all actions). 67% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 33% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 34% defensive, 48% middle, 18% attacking.

Attack Sides

Which channel they attacked through this season: the share of every action made in the opponent’s half, down the left, through the middle and down the right. Torino spread it evenly (no channel above 38%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

38%Left side28%Middle34%Right sideATTACKING →
Torino
38%28%34%
League
38%24%38%

Final-Third Entries

Every completed pass or carry that took the ball from outside the final third into it, by the channel it arrived in. Torino made 321 this season (35.7 a match); 27% came into the left wing. Longer, bolder arrows mean more entries. Entries by carrying the ball in count as well as completed passes; dribbles are not counted.

Left wing: 87 entries (27%)8727%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 52 entries (16%)5216%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 49 entries (15%)4915%CENTRERight half-space: 50 entries (16%)5016%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 83 entries (26%)8326%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing879.727%29%
Left half-space525.816%15%
Centre495.415%13%
Right half-space505.616%15%
Right wing839.226%28%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Torino progress possession from defence into attack — and who runs it?

Build-up passes grouped into 5 real categories — not the old zone grid, not raw individual lines: CB (passer is a centre-back), Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top passer.

1517build-up passes attempted
79%completed
25%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third

Pass types

677CB · 56%
52Long Wide · 4%
18Long Central · 1%
332Wide → FB · 28%
122Central · 10%

Sequence success — build-up

131build-up sequences this season
10%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
41%turned over with nothing to show
CB677 · 56%
right: 358 passes, most from Coco358left: 319 passes, most from Coco319
Long Wide52 · 4%
left: 30 passes, most from Perri30right: 22 passes, most from Perri22
Long Central18 · 1%
left: 11 passes, most from Perri11right: 7 passes, most from Perri7
Wide → FB332 · 28%
left: 170 passes, most from Perri170right: 162 passes, most from Perri162
Central122 · 10%
left: 64 passes, most from Perri64right: 58 passes, most from Perri58
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino build predominantly down the right, with Coco as the fulcrum (239 build-up passes). Only 26% of their build-up passes actually advance a third — the rest is lateral circulation, the hallmark of a possession-controlling side that circulates patiently in midfield before progressing. Their single most-repeated pattern is C def → RHS def (111×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Torino’s last 9 matches as an arrow, theirs first and the opponents’ with other team, each side attacking left to right (solid = completed, dashed grey = failed). Eight families per team — click any map to open it wide, then filter by channel or third, from one to another (or click a cell of the flow grids), by outcome, half, minute and passer. Channels: right wing, right half-space, centre, left half-space, left wing.

Progression4 sections

How They Progress — the mechanism

Not just how many progressive passes, but where they start, who plays them, and whether they actually penetrate. 329 progressive passes across 9 matches (36.6/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
25%
Right half-space
13%
Central
22%
Left half-space
16%
Left wing
24%
Progression is left-dominant: 38% right side · 22% central · 40% left.

Who generates it

Pietro Comuzzo
46 · 14%
Lucas Perri
44 · 13%
Saúl Coco
31 · 9%
Rafik Belghali
26 · 8%
Eray Cömert
20 · 6%
Top two — Pietro Comuzzo & Lucas Perri — account for 27% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
36.6 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
31% reach final third
20% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 69% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 31% of progressive passes reached the final third and 20% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 27% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the left side.

Which lanes actually create the threat

Share of passes played from each lane against its share of the threat (xT) they add. Efficient = more threat than volume, sterile = lots of the ball, little damage.

Per lane — volume vs threat
Right wingbalanced
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Torino have the ball in midfield, how do they actually break into the final third — and who carries that job?

Progression passes grouped into 5 real categories: CB, Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top passer.

2056progression passes attempted
86%completed
13%break into the final third
14%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

773CB · 43%
41Long Wide · 2%
14Long Central · 1%
663Wide → FB · 37%
287Central · 16%

Sequence success — progression

254progression sequences this season
25%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB773 · 43%
left: 402 passes, most from Comuzzo402right: 371 passes, most from Coco371
Long Wide41 · 2%
right: 21 passes, most from Adams21left: 20 passes, most from Gineitis20
Long Central14 · 1%
right: 8 passes, most from Fitz-Jim8left: 6 passes, most from Mandragora6
Wide → FB663 · 37%
left: 333 passes, most from Cacciamani333right: 330 passes, most from Vlasic330
Central287 · 16%
left: 144 passes, most from Fitz-Jim144right: 143 passes, most from Mandragora143
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino progress predominantly down the left, with Coco the busiest midfield outlet (218 progression passes). Only 13% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (73%) is recycled back into midfield or (14%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LHS mid → C mid (117×) — press that lane and midfield progression stalls.

Decision Quality — not all completed passes are equal

A 90% pass completion can hide a sideways habit. Grading every pass by the threat it adds separates value creation from safe circulation.

Excellent (high xT gain)
12%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
48%
Safe / backward
40%
12% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 88% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

The question
Where does Torino actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

210 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (21% of 991 tracked carries total), grouped into up to 4 spatial patterns by where each carry starts and ends together — not just its origin zone. Median 15m, longest 60m. Most active carrier: Cacciamani (38). Filter to one player below.

First (57)Second (53)Third (52)Fourth (48)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Chance creation4 sections

Chance creation — how the shots come

The question
Where do Torino's chances actually come from?

Every shot sorted twice. First by the kind of attack: an attacking transition (the shot came within 15 seconds of winning the ball), a settled attack (open play after the team had the ball), or a set piece. Then by how it was set up: a cross, a cut-back, a long ball, a pass into the box, or no pass at all (the player created it himself). So a cut-back from an attacking transition is counted apart from a cut-back in a settled attack.

96shots
9.3xG
0.10xG per shot
4big chances (0.3+ xG)
14goals
#18key passes / game in the league
#18box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 18 shots (19%)19%18Settled attack: 61 shots (64%)64%61Set piece: 17 shots (18%)18%1796SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 19% of shots1831.640.09
Cross100.070.07
Cut-back110.210.21
Long ball100.130.13
Pass into the box / short pass810.810.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)710.420.06
Settled attack 64% of shots61106.060.10
Cross1031.140.11
Cut-back510.770.15
Long ball110.050.05
Pass into the box / short pass3442.910.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1111.200.11
Set piece 18% of shots1711.550.09
Corner1411.460.10
Free kick300.090.03

Every attempt to create — and what came of it

Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.

Who sets the shots up

PlayerSet-upsxG createdGoals
Nikola Vlasic101.261
Kian Fitz-Jim80.861
Rafik Belghali50.673
Rolando Mandragora60.531
Emirhan Ilkhan20.430

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Giovanni Simeone202.252
Ché Adams121.794
Pietro Comuzzo60.821
Daniel Bragança50.731
Nikola Vlasic100.651
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Torino's chances, by xG, is settled attack (6.1 of 9.3 xG, 61 of 96 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 18 of the 96 shots (19%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 17 of the 96 shots came from set pieces; 14 goals from 9.3 xG (+4.7).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Torino consistently create dangerous chances — from which zones, and who creates them?

Key passes (the pass immediately before a shot) grouped into 5 real categories: CB, Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top creator.

Pass types

7CB · 10%
2Long Wide · 3%
7Long Central · 10%
21Wide → FB · 31%
31Central · 46%

Sequence success — final-third

152final-third sequences this season
21%succeed — produce a shot
31%turned over with nothing to show

Danger Funnel — which service carries threat

Every key pass pooled by where it was played FROM, then drawn with its arrow width set by total xT rather than by count. A zone that produces a lot of cheap balls shrinks; one that produces a few decisive ones dominates. Where this disagrees with the volume map, the volume map is the misleading one.

0 key passes shown● low threat● mid● high threatarrow width = total xT, not count
CB7 · 10%
left: 4 passes, most from Comuzzo4right: 3 passes, most from Fortini3
Long Wide2 · 3%
left: 2 passes, most from Mandragora2
Long Central7 · 10%
left: 5 passes, most from Mandragora5right: 2 passes, most from Mandragora2
Wide → FB21 · 31%
left: 13 passes, most from Cacciamani13right: 8 passes, most from Vlasic8
Central31 · 46%
right: 16 passes, most from Belghali16left: 15 passes, most from Fitz-Jim15

Who creates — volume × threat

10Vlasic
9Fitz-Jim
9Mandragora
5Cacciamani
5Gineitis
5Simeone
5Belghali
68key passes #18 of 20
8.9box entries/game #18 of 20
28.7final-3rd entries/game #16 of 20
1.03xG/game #18 of 20
14goals #9 of 20
+4.7finishing vs xG #3 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino lean left — 43% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (29 of 68), most often from Fitz-Jim (7). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (9 key passes, most often from Vlasic). Vlasic is the primary source overall. They generate 1.03 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Ché Adams (4G), Giovanni Simeone (2G), Sandro Kulenovic (2G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

The question
How does Torino deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?

91 crosses: 34 found a team-mate (37%), 13 led to a shot (14%). 25 cut-backs: 10 found a team-mate (40%), 6 led to a shot (24%). A cross starts wide and is aimed into the box; a cut-back starts near the byline and is squared back. Grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball.

Crosses by Territory

The question
Which part of the final third does Torino actually cross from?

91 crosses this season (the same crosses as the map above), split into fifteen territories — five channels (both wings, both half-spaces and the centre) by three depths from the halfway line to the byline. 33% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 4 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 2 crosses (2%)2%2deep right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 7 crosses (8%)8%7advanced right wing: 12 crosses (13%)13%12advanced right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left wing: 18 crosses (20%)20%18byline right wing: 18 crosses (20%)20%18byline right half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2byline left wing: 30 crosses (33%)33%30
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · left wing3033%2
advanced · left wing1820%3
byline · right wing1820%3
advanced · right wing1213%2
deep · left wing78%2
deep · right wing22%0
byline · right half-space22%0
byline · left half-space22%1
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

96 shots for 9.3 xG (1.03/game, #18 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

Moderate attack. 10.7 shots/game at 0.096 xG/shot. Box entries 9/game (#18). Threat created 9.4 xT/game (#16).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Torino’s 14 goals this season, from the moment they got the ball to the finish. Pick a goal from the list, then step through it or press Play: numbered circles are passes and touches, dotted lines are carries (the ball travelling with a player), dashed grey is a pass that was lost, the star is the shot.

Each goal’s possession, rebuilt from the raw event feed — 14 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?

Every goal Torino scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.

By situation

Open play
13 · 93%
Set pieces
1 · 7%
Penalties
0 · 0%

By finish

Right foot
7 · 50%
Left foot
5 · 36%
Header
2 · 14%
Vision AI Model Insight
14 goals scored. 93% come in open play; set pieces add 7%. Open play is clearly their main route to goal.
When they lose it1 section

Ball-Loss Map — where attacks die

Every turnover has a location and a cause. This is a rate, not a raw count — the share of pass attempts from each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone they simply play through more often doesn't automatically look riskier. Grey cells are real zones with too few attempts to trust a rate.

Loss rate by zone

51 of 176 pass attempts lost here (29%).29%51/176Belghali26 of 222 pass attempts lost here (12%).12%26/222Perri164 of 698 pass attempts lost here (23%).23%164/698Perri31 of 234 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%31/234Perri44 of 187 pass attempts lost here (24%).24%44/187Comuzzo57 of 302 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%57/302Belghali44 of 410 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%44/410Vlasic56 of 561 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%56/561Simeone57 of 451 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%57/451Mandragora64 of 332 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%64/332Cacciamani52 of 209 pass attempts lost here (25%).25%52/209Belghali26 of 120 pass attempts lost here (22%).22%26/120Vlasic38 of 109 pass attempts lost here (35%).35%38/109Fitz-Jim39 of 117 pass attempts lost here (33%).33%39/117Cacciamani57 of 190 pass attempts lost here (30%).30%57/190Cacciamaniattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
212
Failed forward pass
125
Failed take-on
80
Lost in the defensive third
316
Their weakest zone is the central in the attacking third: 35% of 109 pass attempts there are lost (38 times). Separately, 26% of all losses happen in the attacking third — a fair share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Out of possession

Out of possession

How they press, where they win the ball back, and how they concede.

Pressing2 sections

Pressing — the full picture

The football question
How hard does Torino press, where, and does it actually work — beyond a single PPDA number?

A composite Pressing Index built from four event-derived dimensions, each ranked against the league. Not one metric — intensity, height, effectiveness and opponent disruption together. The pitch shows every defensive action (the only five events this data records); the white line is the average height that feeds the score. Toggle by action type below, hover any dot for the player.

35
Pressing Index
/100 · passive
Intensity30
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height25
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness38
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption48
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
15%
RHS
17%
C
28%
LHS
25%
LW
16%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 49%
Mid 39%
Att 12%
Read
Ranked #14 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. 51% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 37. Of recoveries, 53% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#14/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game146#9/20
High-press share20%#14/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)37.0#15/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game19.4#14/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share53%#11/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed83%#14/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed8.5%#7/20of opp passes, lower = better
Transition timing
This source carries per-event timestamps, so genuine transition metrics — counter-attack shots, press→shot conversions, time-to-recover — are measured; see the dedicated Transitions section below.

How long they keep it — passes and seconds until the ball is won

The question
Once the opponent has the ball, how many passes and how many seconds pass before Torino win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 254 opposition possessions that Torino ended with a tackle, interception, recovery or challenge. Fewer passes and seconds means the ball is won quickly (a press); more means the opponent is allowed to play before Torino step in. Torino win it after 6.6 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 6.0 after the hour mark (sooner).

PASSES THEY GET
6.0passes
median 4 · before Torino win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
18sec
median 10s · 28.2 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
36%
27%
18%
19%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
7.4
22s
15–30′
5.5
16s
30–45+′
5.3
16s
45–60′
5.4
17s
60–75′
6.9
22s
75–90+′
5.4
17s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Torino does. This says how: wide or central, short or long, patient or direct. Bars are standard deviations from the league mean for passes played from that third; a solid bar marks a dimension where Torino are genuinely unusual, and a verdict is only written where something clears 0.85 sd — a side that is ordinary in a third is told so rather than given a label for average play.

Build-up (own third) 1,517 passes

narrow, central

Width of use-1.2618.39
Wide-channel share-0.830.25
Side bias+0.140.70
Pass length-0.0222.61
Long-ball share-0.170.21
Forward gain per pass-0.0411.28
Backward-pass share+0.590.23
Deep-pass share-0.040.28
Completion-0.080.79
Seconds between passes-0.722.89
Side used

left 24% · central 53% · right 23%

Progression (middle third) 2,056 passes

narrow, central, played inside

Width of use-1.0223.41
Wide-channel share-0.950.34
Side bias+0.391.59
Pass length-0.5816.42
Long-ball share-0.600.08
Forward gain per pass-0.692.56
Backward-pass share+0.790.37
Deep-pass share-0.320.15
Completion+0.220.86
Seconds between passes-0.193.11
Side used

left 34% · central 36% · right 30%

Final third 745 passes

more recycling

Width of use-0.5630.22
Wide-channel share-0.500.54
Side bias+0.140.52
Pass length-0.0215.43
Long-ball share-0.530.08
Forward gain per pass-0.82-0.06
Backward-pass share+1.060.46
Deep-pass share-0.080.09
Completion+0.010.70
Seconds between passes+0.213.56
Side used

left 40% · central 20% · right 40%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Torino's own league. The means behave as football should: width of use grows 21.0 → 25.6 → 31.6 going forward, pass length shrinks 22.7 → 17.2 → 15.5 m, and completion is hardest in the final third. Tempo is integer-resolution because the feed records whole seconds.

Transitions1 section

Transitions — attacking & defensive

The question
When Torino win or lose the ball, what actually happens in the seconds after?

Reconstructed from the full timestamped event stream: real possession spells (not zone-clustered), and shots that follow a regain within a fixed window. This phase of play needs ordered, per-event timestamps — which every match here carries.

Direct play share17%
#7 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#15 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)15.8s
#4 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#15 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.15
#4 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.32
#5 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.5s
#4 of 20 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

8attacking transition sequences this season
12%succeed — produce a shot
50%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

40defensive transition sequences this season
55%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
12%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Torino are a direct, fast-break side: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#7 of 20), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#15 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.15 times a game (#4), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.32 times a game (#5 of 20) — a genuine transition weapon.
Defending the box2 sections

Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them

The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Torino? 402 opponent progressive passes and 142 shots faced (12.9 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Torino)

Right wing
32%
Right half-space
14%
Central
13%
Left half-space
10%
Left wing
31%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (32% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

The question
Where do the goals against Torino actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?

Every goal Torino conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Torino's own matches — plus every individual opponent key pass faced, each drawn as its own real arrow (not zone-clustered) with the % share of each zone behind it.

Where the goals go in

← opponent shot at own goal

Every opponent key pass against them (107 total)

2%3%3%7%13%21%14%14%22%Armand LaurientéVasilije AdzicCristian VolpatoKieron BowieCristian VolpatoVasilije AdzicKristian ThorstvedtFedde LeysenJosh DoigVasilije AdzicDarryl BakolaNemanja MaticDarryl BakolaCristian VolpatoDarryl BakolaVasilije AdzicDomenico BerardiDomenico BerardiRuben Loftus-CheekRuben Loftus-CheekPervis EstupiñánSamuel ChukwuezeSamuel ChukwuezeArdon JashariRuben Loftus-CheekSamuel ChukwuezeAlphadjo CissèPervis EstupiñánMario GilaLuka ModricAdrien RabiotSamuel ChukwuezeDavide BartesaghiGonçalo RamosDavide BartesaghiAlieu NjieAlieu NjieRadu DragusinCher NdourAlieu NjieAlieu NjieJoão MárioNicolò FagioliYan CoutoNico PazLucas da CunhaLuis MillaYan CoutoTasos DouvikasNico PazNico PazMartin BaturinaYan CoutoSamuele BirindelliMario HermosoPaulo DybalaPaulo DybalaMatías SouléPaulo DybalaDonyell MalenGianluca ManciniNiccolò PisilliRodrigo MoraNiccolò PisilliJuan MirandaNicolò CambiaghiJuan MirandaJuan MirandaRoberto PiccoliJuan MirandaFederico BernardeschiNikola MoroJurgen EkkelenkampOier ZarragaEnzo EbosseMërgim VojvodaMërgim VojvodaEnzo EbosseGiorgi ChakvetadzeOier ZarragaDavid AlabaGiorgi ChakvetadzeEmanuele ValeriDavid RomeroGiovanni FabbianAdrián BernabéEmanuele ValeriEmanuele ValeriAdrián BernabéAdrián BernabéEmanuele ValeriAdrián BernabéAdrián BernabéEmanuele ValeriAdrián BernabéMariano TroiloEmanuele ValeriEnrico DelpratoEmanuele ValeriChristian OrdóñezMariano TroiloEmanuele ValeriDjibril DialloEbenezer AkinsanmiroRicardo MangasDany MotaRicardo Mangas← own goal

By situation

Open play
12 · 92%
Set pieces
1 · 8%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
13 goals conceded. 92% come in open play; set pieces account for only 8%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 15% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the left wing of the attacking third (22% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
Context

Shape and tactics

Set pieces, strengths and weaknesses, and who they resemble.

Premium
Tactical Phase Read
The tactical idea behind each phase of this team's play, written from the same numbers shown above — what they do in build-up, how they progress, where they create, and how they defend it.
Subscribe →

Set-Piece Threat

How much of the goal threat is manufactured from dead balls — a route to goal that bypasses their open-play mechanism entirely.

Open play
13 g · 7.7 xG
Set pieces
1 g · 1.6 xG
Penalties
0 g
7% of goals come from set pieces (1 of 14), worth 1.6 xG from 17 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.

Where do Torino's corners go?

31 corners taken this season, split by which flag they were taken from — arrows from the flag, dots at the delivery point, shaded by % of that side's corners landing in each zone (same treatment as the concede map below). No swing-direction (inswinger/outswinger) data is recorded here, only a start and end point per pass, which cannot show how the ball curved — so this shows what is genuinely knowable: where it lands, and short vs actually delivered. Tap or hover a dot for who took it and the match; filter to one match below and the shading recomputes for just that game.

Right side (14)

14%7%7%50%21%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Left side (17)

6%18%6%18%6%35%
Delivered into the box 88%Short 12%

Where opponents attack Torino from set pieces

12 shots from opponent corners against Torino, 1 conceded, split by the flag the corner came from — arrows from the flag, dots where the shot was taken (gold = goal), shaded by the % of that flag's shots in each zone. Tap or hover a shot for who took it, the minute and the match; filter to one match and the shading recomputes for just that game.

Right flag (8)

38%38%25%
Shot 8Goals 0

Left flag (4)

25%50%25%
Shot 4Goals 1

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • none stand out
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • box entries /game — 8.89 (5th pct)
  • shots /game — 10.67 (5th pct)
  • xG created /game — 1.03 (10th pct)
  • progression /game — 36.56 (10th pct)
  • field tilt % — 40.06 (15th pct)

Style Archetype & Similar Teams

Team archetype: Direct / counter high-press. Their closest stylistic matches in the league (cosine similarity on style metrics) — sides that play a similar way.

Genoa
91%
Parma Calcio 1913
89%
Monza
74%
Cagliari
67%
Bologna
67%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

The question
Not just how Torino results against a high press or a low block — how does their own play actually change?

Every match split into three tiers by how hard that specific opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower means a more aggressive press), matching Torino's own passing behaviour to the result.

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (3m)1.671.671.00
vs mid-block opponents (3m)1.331.671.33
vs low-block opponents (3m)1.671.332.00

Behaviour — how Torino actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents78%13%307.46.7
vs mid-block opponents79%13%4811.712.3
vs low-block opponents85%11%329.27.7
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 78% vs 85% against a low block (7pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 13% when pressed vs 11% against a low block — a mild adjustment, not a wholesale change.

Scouting Summary — the team in brief

In brief. Torino are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.03 xG a game and they concede 1.43 a game. [Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
Squad

Players

Who drives the numbers.

Against Their Own Norm

For each of ten match numbers, the one match this season that departed furthest from Torino’s own average, the eight biggest swings first. Bar right of centre means more than usual, left means less. It shows how much the way they play moves from game to game, and which opponent moved it.

Torino
across 9 matches this season
Expected goalsvs Udinese · 2-1 · 2026-10-121.52avg 1.03
Passesvs Como · 1-3 · 2026-10-27296avg 480
Final-third entriesat Fiorentina · 2-1 · 2026-09-0564avg 36
Threat from passingvs Monza · 3-2 · 2026-10-236.88avg 4.12
Progressive passesvs Monza · 3-2 · 2026-10-2361avg 37
PPDAvs Udinese · 2-1 · 2026-10-1210.6avg 6.0
Pass accuracyvs Como · 1-3 · 2026-10-2773%avg 81%
Progressive carriesvs Como · 1-3 · 2026-10-2723avg 38

On-Ball Value — who moved the game

Every pass, carry, take-on, shot and ball win is worth the change it made to the chance of scoring minus the chance of conceding in the next 10 seconds. This is Torino’s last 9 matches added up: where the value came from, who produced it, and the six biggest single moves. OBV only measures what a player does with the ball: it shows who added the most on-ball value, not who was the most important player (defending off the ball, positioning and pressing are not in it).

+11.3on-ball value, 9 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4318 actions+2.68
Carries991 actions+0.18
Dribbles144 actions+0.75
Shots96 actions+4.86
Ball wins487 actions+2.82
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Giovanni Simeone240+1.19+0.50
Ché Adams188+1.14+0.61
Lucas Perri391+1.05+0.27
Saúl Coco689+0.98+0.14
Pietro Comuzzo550+0.84+0.15
Rolando Mandragora400+0.80+0.20
Sandro Kulenovic53+0.75+1.41
Nikola Vlasic467+0.71+0.15
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Nikola Vlasic · take-on+0.377
2  Ché Adams · shot+0.366
3  Ché Adams · shot+0.313
4  Sandro Kulenovic · shot+0.284
5  Kian Fitz-Jim · carry+0.243
6  Sandro Kulenovic · shot+0.240

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Torino’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 31 corners taken, most by Rolando Mandragora (12); 17 shots from corners and free kicks, 1 goals, led by Daniel Bragança (1 goals, 0.54 xG). “Into the box” counts corners that landed inside the penalty area; free-kick takers are the players who shot from one, because this feed does not mark who delivers the others.

PlayerCorners takenInto the boxSet-piece shotsGoalsxGFree-kick shotsPenalties
Rolando Mandragora1211 (92%)3—0.093—
Saúl Coco——4—0.23——
Daniel Bragança74 (57%)110.54——
Kian Fitz-Jim66 (100%)——0.00——
Nikola Vlasic——2—0.05——
Giovanni Simeone——2—0.21——
Pietro Comuzzo——2—0.16——
Emirhan Ilkhan11 (100%)1—0.03——
Ché Adams——1—0.18——
Ardian Ismajli——1—0.07——
Gvidas Gineitis22 (100%)——0.00——
Gaetano Oristanio10 (0%)——0.00——
Niccolò Fortini11 (100%)——0.00——
Sandro Kulenovic10 (0%)——0.00——

Top Performers

Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 243 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Kian Fitz-JimCM5177.2Successful Dribble 96%Ball-Carrying 78%Progression 48%Chance Creation 46%
Rafik BelghaliCM4505.4Successful Dribble 86%Ball-Carrying 58%Progression 44%Chance Creation 42%
Nikola VlasicCM7455.3Successful Dribble 60%Ball-Carrying 53%Progression 47%Chance Creation 42%
Ardian IsmajliCB6035.0Ball-Winning 54%Aerial & Box Defending 49%Progression 36%Ball-Carrying 25%
Rolando MandragoraCM4785.0Progression 42%Chance Creation 38%Successful Dribble 8%Ball-Carrying 6%
Saúl CocoCB7934.9Ball-Carrying 42%Progression 41%Ball-Winning 40%Aerial & Box Defending 35%
Giovanni SimeoneST6764.7Ball-Carrying 58%Finishing 49%Box Threat 36%Aerial Threat 0%
Lucas PerriGK6614.0Shot-Stopping 40%
Ché AdamsST5134.0Finishing 67%Ball-Carrying 44%Box Threat 32%Aerial Threat 0%
Alessio CacciamaniCM6873.1Ball-Carrying 74%Successful Dribble 65%Chance Creation 19%Progression 14%

Top Creators

Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Nikola VlasicM7451.21125.6
Rolando MandragoraM4781.69116.9
Kian Fitz-JimM5171.5775.5
Alessio CacciamaniM6870.6673.7
Pietro ComuzzoD7190.3869.2
Giovanni SimeoneF6760.6741.2
Rafik BelghaliM4501.0035.0
Daniel BragançaM4010.6743.4

Defensive Volume Leaders

Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Saúl CocoD79313916726
Ardian IsmajliD60313551217
Pietro ComuzzoD719124211030
Giovanni SimeoneF6761098419
Alessio CacciamaniM687967233
Nikola VlasicM745932334
Rolando MandragoraM478828723
Daniel BragançaM401657616

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (19 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Saúl CocoD979300.423113910.0
Nikola VlasicM974510.71019935.6
Pietro ComuzzoD871910.83461249.2
Alessio CacciamaniM968700.1518963.7
Giovanni SimeoneF967622.2551091.2
Lucas PerriG766100.0044109.8
Ardian IsmajliD860300.10101354.2
Kian Fitz-JimM751710.2916565.5
Ché AdamsF751341.8311482.0
Rolando MandragoraM647810.4919826.9
Rafik BelghaliM745010.3526625.0
Gvidas GineitisM840800.256561.9
Daniel BragançaM740110.7314653.4
Eray CömertD432200.0120456.7
Niccolò FortiniD526800.1113413.0
Diego MascardiG218700.00351.3
Sandro KulenovicF718120.504310.4
Nathan PattersonM415300.106321.3
Emirhan IlkhanM512200.026201.7

Player Role Architecture

The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?

The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.

Saúl Coco
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes793
goals · xG0 · 0.4
prog passes /903.5
key passes /900.23
def actions /9015.8
pass accuracy89%
Nikola Vlasic
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes745
goals · xG1 · 0.7
prog passes /902.3
key passes /901.21
def actions /9011.2
pass accuracy85%
Pietro Comuzzo
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes719
goals · xG1 · 0.8
prog passes /905.8
key passes /900.38
def actions /9015.5
pass accuracy86%
Alessio Cacciamani
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes687
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /902.4
key passes /900.66
def actions /9012.6
pass accuracy73%
Giovanni Simeone
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes676
goals · xG2 · 2.2
prog passes /900.7
key passes /900.67
def actions /9014.5
pass accuracy67%
Lucas Perri
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes661
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /906.0
key passes /900.00
def actions /901.4
pass accuracy58%
Ardian Ismajli
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes603
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /901.5
key passes /900.00
def actions /9020.1
pass accuracy91%
Kian Fitz-Jim
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes517
goals · xG1 · 0.2
prog passes /902.8
key passes /901.57
def actions /909.7
pass accuracy85%
Ché Adams
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes513
goals · xG4 · 1.8
prog passes /901.9
key passes /900.53
def actions /908.4
pass accuracy79%

Recruitment Intelligence — profiles to sign

The question
If you were sporting director, which player profiles would move the needle most?

Each recruitment target is derived directly from the team's weakest areas vs the league — the gap, why it shows in the data, and the profile that closes it.

Need — bottom-third: box entries /game (5th pct)
Sign a penetrative wide player or runner to create box entries. The data flags this because few entries into the box (8.89, 5th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: shots /game (5th pct)
Sign a shot-taking forward to raise shot volume. The data flags this because shot volume is low (10.67, 5th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: xG created /game (10th pct)
Sign a higher-volume goalscorer or chance creator. The data flags this because the attack under-produces xG (1.03, 10th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report